Let’s start by saying that I have no experience panhandling, therefore, you, the reader, can be 100 percent sure that I am incapable, due to a lack of expert knowledge, in understanding exactly what it means to panhandle.

We can certainly make assumptions, though. In fact, that is exactly what has happened recently in our city. People are all abuzz about panhandling, or their assumptions about it. They want it banned from our city.

Here are some things I have been told about panhandlers in just a few hours of prying into the matter:

“Those people get into nice Cadillacs at the end of the day.”

“You do realize that you are supporting their drug habits”

“These are businesses that they are operating”

“They are undermining my ability to do business”

“They are threatening to women”

“They are not homeless”

“I heard one guy makes $30,000 a year doing it. Another lady put her daughter through college”

Wow. It sounds like I am in the wrong business. One would think that everyone would be out in the streets, taking the “easy road.”

When I dig further, people focus in on one specific activity. Aggressive behavior. They are saying that we need to create laws that will help our law enforcement community better target aggressive behavior. That sounds fine to me! This dude does not abide when it comes to aggression. It will not stand and we need to do something about it. I agree. Let us please ensure that we have the proper laws on our books so that NO ONE is aggressive and threatening in any manner. We can stop right there.

But there’s more. If you review the proposed ordinances, there are a few key points that are concerning to me:

1. They want to make a rule where you can only “solicit alms” if you have a license on public property.

Alms is defined as money, property or other tangible things. We can translate that to say: “You can’t ask people for stuff unless you fill out this form and pay the city some money, then you can ask people for stuff.” You see how that can be troublesome, right? If you do not, then I guess you have never had to ask a stranger for help. How very lucky of you.

2. If you do ask, and you get a negative response, you cannot ask again. This seems totally easy to enforce and clearly does not rely on the testimony of the person offended by being spoken to.

3. Loitering. They define loitering to mean “remaining in a location for a period of time that a reasonable person would regard as excessive in relation to the location’s primary purpose.”

First, let’s talk about defining some more terms. “Reasonable person”? Really? It is my guess that we all interpret that quite differently. Given our current presidential candidates, I’d say none of us are a good judge of reasonable.

But let’s talk about the “commons.” Do you know what that means? We do not use that word very often, but it is meant to describe that which we all own together. These public spaces are wholly owned by me, you, the aggressive guy, the guy handling pans, a mime on the street, the city commissioner proposing this ordinance and my momma. We ALL own it. It’s ours. Together. It’s not just yours.

So let us first be reasonable and agree on who owns things around here. We all do, no matter how much you hate the sound of that. It is an undeniable fact. That’s the commons. Let’s start taking it back. I’m going to do so by loitering a whole lot more often starting right now. I’m actually loitering 10 feet from a danger zone currently.

You know who else is loitering? Pokemon Go trainers. You know, the people helping to make our downtown lively again. Something we didn’t need a study to accomplish. Also, the Salvation Army bell ringers, Girl Scouts, Break it down Bob, the Spinning Man, and that guy that’s always telling everyone he invented the hovercraft (or was it hoovercraft) — they are loitering? I don’t know about any hoovercraft, but I do know that all of this adds to the fabric and the culture of our community.

4. We will also be forbidden to gather if we are using “fighting words.”

While I get the intent of this, I chuckle a little bit as I hear a western movie playing in the background when a ranch hand says in a disagreement, “them’s fightin’ words.”

Is this 1820 New Mexico? What are these fighting words I’m not allowed to use? No really, I need to know. This ordinance itself makes me want to use some fighting words. Will I be arrested if I say them out loud? What if I mutter them under my breath, looking all wide-eyed after drinking two cups of coffee? “I’m gonna get you rascally rabbits if it's the last thing I do!” Put me in shackles, I’m a danger to the economic vibrancy of our ever thriving downtown.

5. Under the new proposal, it will be unlawful for a person to remain idly within 25 feet of an intersection.

Even if I’m tying my shoe? What if I’m texting my wife to tell her I’ll be playing Pokemon and getting some ice cream downtown? What if I am telling jokes and no one is listening? What if I’m geocaching and I just can’t find that darn-tootin' hidden thing under the bench?

All of this, because there are some jerks who act very aggressive in some parking lots. Please let our city leadership right size this ordinance to go after the targeted behaviors that we can all agree should be penalized. Leave the poor alone.

Jeremy Andrews is a Battle Creek native, a community organizer and activist, a storyteller, the chief executive of the nonprofit Sprout Battle Creek and a known loiterer. He asks that however you land on this issue, please attend the commission meeting on Sept. 6